COMMENTS

BenF the world has moved on since 1967 when the emegency regulations you refer to above were put in place immediately following the Six Day War.
Describing the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied Palestinian territories" is incorrect and misleading. Israel's transfer of government functions under the Oslo Agreements greatly strengthens Israel's case that the main international conventions relevant to military occupations do not now apply as they might have done 44 years ago.
Describing these territories as "Palestinian" may serve the Palestinians' political agenda but prejudges the outcome of future territorial negotiations that were envisioned under UN Security Council Resolution 242. It also serves the current Palestinian effort to obtain international affirmation of Palestinian claims and a total denial of Israel's fundamental rights in every international forum as witnessed in September in the UN when Abu Moussa failed to mention any Jewish connection to the Holy Land. It would be far more accurate to describe Judea and Samaria as "disputed territories" to which both Israelis and Palestinians have claims.

The emergency regulations are not the point. The point is that in 1967 Israel agreed with the rest of the world that these territories are occupied territories and spoke of them as such. If they were occupied then they cannot be not occupied now.

Not it's not the point. Israel brought in emrgency regulations in much the same way as the Allied Powers during their occupation of Germany after WWII for what was at the time supposed to have been a short occupation. They are not occupied now because Jordan which was the only sovereign state laying claim to the territories has now renounced that claim. The PLO in its founding charter stipulated that it had no claims to Judea and Samaria. For someone who argues that pro-Israel supporters live in the past you are doing much the same thing here.

After the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel was — in Defense Minister Moshe Dayan's famous phrase — "waiting for a telephone call" from Arab leaders. Israelis expected to hear that now, at last, their neighbors were ready to talk peace. Having escaped not only feared annihilation, but also winning a seemingly miraculous victory, Israel's leaders did two things: They vowed not to return to the vulnerable armistice lines of 1948 and '49 or to a divided Jerusalem, and yet to be "unbelievably generous in working out peace terms," as Foreign Minister Abba Eban put it. In direct talks with Arab countries, "everything is negotiable," he said.

But, as Maj. Gen. (later president) Chaim Herzog noted, "Israel's belief that the war had come to an end and peace would prevail along the borders was quickly dispelled. Three weeks after the conclusion of hostilities, the first major incident occurred along the Suez Canal."

Meanwhile, from late June through July, the Soviet Union — determined to revive its influence and the confidence of its allies, Egypt and Syria — initiated a massive resupply of arms. This included the shipment of more than 200 crated MiG fighter jets in two weeks.

On July 15, five Arab leaders agreed "on the necessary effective steps to eliminate the consequences of imperialist Israeli aggression on the Arab homeland." This language echoed Soviet advice to "liquidate the consequences" of the war without conceding anything to Israel. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and his colleagues attempted to stand reality on its head and convince themselves, and the world, that they had been victimized, rather than defeated by Israel in self-defense.

Regaining confidence, Nasser declared on July 23 "that he was preparing his armed forces to continue the battle against Israel. 'We shall never surrender and shall not accept any peace that means surrender." In addition, he asserted, "'we shall preserve the rights of the Palestinians,'" (A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, Howard M. Sachar, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1996, second edition). These "rights" were to be realized not only by Israeli withdrawal to the 1948 and '49 armistice lines, but eventually to the truncated boundaries proposed in the 1947 U.N. partition plan (rejected by the Arab representatives at the time).

Finally, the leaders of thirteen Arab states gathered at a summit conference in Khartoum, Sudan from August 29 to September 1. There they pledged to continue their struggle against Israel. Influenced by Nasser, "their conditions were quite specific: no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and 'maintenance of the rights of the Palestinian people in their nation.' The Khartoum Declaration was the first serious warning to the Israelis that their expectation of an imminent 'phone call' from the Arab world might be a pipe dream" (Sachar).

This "warning" was reinforced on October 21, when an Egyptian missile boat sunk the Israeli destroyer Eilat, killing 47 people. It was confirmed in November and December, when the Arab states repeatedly rebuffed attempts by Sweden's ambassador to the Soviet Union, Gunnar Jarring — serving as the U.N. secretary general's special envoy - to induce them to join talks with Israel. In fact, the "three no's of Khartoum" held for a dozen years, until Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel — at which point the other 20 member states expelled it from the Arab League.

Major transformations in the status of the PT [Judea and Samaria] have evidently taken place since the Six-Day War of 1967 until the present day and, if the past is any measure, many will yet occur before a peace settlement is reached between the Israelis and the Palestinians. However, to summarize the major developments of the relations between Israel and the PT thus far, we perceive how the PT has moved from being under total territorial control by Israel to becoming a territorial entity of its own, although still short of an independent sovereign State.

Furthermore in 2010 [http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=188604] the Palestinian Authority reaffirmed the death penalty for any Palestinian found guilty of selling land to Israelis in Judea and Samaria - if as you say Israel is occupying Judea and Samaria how could such a law come into force or be enforceable? Could you possibly imagine the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto enacting a law that any Jew selling land to a German would face the death penalty.

Moreover, she [Chief Justice Beinisch] said, it is necessary to take account of the fact that the West Bank has been under a prolonged and continuing occupation, so the territory's economic development cannot be put on ice until the occupation ends. The quarries, she noted, supply jobs and training to a non-negligible number of Palestinians; some of their yield is sold to the Palestinians; and the royalties the quarry owners pay the state - almost NIS 30 million a year - are used by the Civil Administration in the territories to fund projects that benefit the Palestinian population.

So the Supreme Court has confirmed the point I was making that the position has changed since 1967 and in addition what BenF fails to mention presumably wht he did not want to link to the quote is that the reason for this is to benefit the Palestinians. yes it is a "brutal occupation" to be sure.

Judea and Samaria are disputed territories whose status can only be determined through negotiations. Occupied territories are territories captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. As Judea and Samaria were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered occupied territories.